I’ve been catching up with my reading. I think some of what I’ve been catching up on is worth sharing. The journal Vaccine had a special edition in 2012 on The Role of Internet Use in Vaccination Decisions. Of the articles, three stood out for me. One on the nature of online discussion and participants, another on provision of information by the media, and one on tactics and tropes of the anti-vaccine movement.

Evidence shows that individuals turn to the Internet for vaccination advice, and suggests such sources can impact vaccination decisions – therefore it is likely that anti-vaccine websites can influence whether people vaccinate themselves or their children. This overview examines the types of rhetoric individuals may encounter online in order to better understand why the anti-vaccination movement can be convincing, despite lacking scientific support for their claims. [My emphasis.]

This is how, despite lacking evidence, anti-vaccine websites can persuade the undecided:

skewing science

shifting hypotheses

censoring dissent

attacking critics

On skewing science, the author reports that science is praised when (but only when) scientific evidence appears to support an anti-vaccine position and gives as one example of this a website that ranks scientific papers on vaccination. The rankings are biased against studies conducted or funded by the CDC and towards studies conducted by people like Mark Geier. The anti-vaccine movement demands more research, but rubbishes the available well-conducted research because the results do not support the anti-vaccine arguments.

When it comes to shifting hypotheses, this is something so noticeable that a paper was actually published on the phenomenon. Gerber and Offit addressed three of the hypotheses proposed by the anti-vaccine movement regarding vaccines and autism. In each case there was a lack of biological plausibility and a lack of evidence for the anti-vaccine movement’s claim. Despite this, research was conducted to investigate each of the claims and each time a claim was shown to be untrue the anti-vaccine movement simply shifted the goalposts. In one case, the research was conducted after Gerber and Offit’s paper (which argued that the notion that vaccines cause autism had been effectively dismissed and further studies on the cause or causes of autism should focus on more-promising leads). Four years after Gerber and Offit, researchers published a paper that contradicted the third of the three claims.

There will probably be some people who have been banned from anti-vaccine websites and forums (as with any other website that has a comment facility) for making defamatory accusations, posting abuse, or some other infraction that actually warranted the wielding of the banhammer. However, there will also be many people who have been banned from anti-vaccine websites or forums simply for posting reasonable, evidence-based comments that happen to be critical of anti-vaccine canards. As Kata points out, such websites may act as “echo chambers”, where one point of view is unquestioningly repeated and reinforced while critiques are expunged. If the censor is efficient it might be that nobody will know that you’ve been banned, let alone why. Anti-vaccine websites disingenuously refer to censorship of dissent as “comment moderation” or creating a “safe environment” and sometimes pretend (when they do admit to banning critics) that the people banned for disagreeing with them were trolling or being abusive.

There may be some anti-vaccine websites that attack critics by pointing out factual errors or flaws in their logic (I can’t recall any off-hand but I wouldn’t want to rule out the possibility). From what I have seen, attacks on critics of the anti-vaccine movement have included false accusations of various things from dishonesty to parent bashing to the tediously ubiquitous pharma shill accusation. There’s also, as Kata points out, legal chill from the vexatious use of libel law. Or that ridiculous photoshopped image of a gruesome imaginary scene that was posted by Age of Autism. Or the death threats Paul Offit has received. All too often, those who are anti-vaccine attempt to smear or intimidate critics instead of engaging with the substance of their arguments.

The author goes on to discuss anti-vaccine tropes. These include attacking straw man versions of the views of critics, characterising vaccines as ‘unnatural’, pretending to be ‘pro-safe vaccine’ rather than anti-vaccine, the pharma shill accusation, and the Galileo gambit. Here’s what Kata said about just one of the anti-vaccine tropes referred to in the article:

“Vaccines didn’t save us”

Rather than acknowledge the role vaccines played in improving health over recent decades, those gains are instead attributed to factors such as cleaner water, better sanitation, and less crowding [182]. This claim is usually accompanied by graphs [183] showing deaths from vaccine-preventable diseases were declining before vaccines were introduced. That mortality rates would have been decreasing due to improving medical and supportive care is not explained. Graphs showing decreasing disease incidence after vaccine introduction would be evidence of their efficacy, and are omitted

I’ve written a number of blog posts about individual articles in the mainstream media. Articles that were almost cartoonishly misleading, scaremongering and biased against vaccination. This is far more interesting. What the authors of this paper did was to systematically analyse Spanish and German articles (both online and newspaper editions), focusing on the HPV vaccines. The findings were, perhaps unsurprisingly, slightly worrying. Here are some of the lowlights:

Results show that 57% of German websites and 43% of German newspaper reports communicated correct estimates of epidemiological data, whereas in Spain 39% of the websites and 20% of the newspaper did so.

Findings reveal that correct estimates about the vaccine’s effectiveness were mentioned in 10% of German websites and 6% of German newspaper reports; none of the Spanish newspaper reports and 2% of Spanish websites reported effectiveness correctly.

The authors conclude that the media lack balanced reporting on completeness (benefits, harms and side effects), transparency (presentation of benefits and harms in absolute numbers instead of or at least in addition to relative numbers), and correctness (evidence-based information). As well as highlighting problems with media reporting, they offer suggestions for improving it. They recommend that reporting standards, along the lines of Consort and Strobe, should be developed and state that such standards would help consumers identify reliable and balanced information sources and support the use of transparent formats to translate scientific knowledge.

This paper looks at what topics are discussed, who discusses them, and how these people feel about them.

Of the topics discussed, 35% were regarding alleged adverse effects of vaccination. Just 4% were about the diseases the vaccine prevents. While discussion of the supposed risks of the vaccine was the most popular topic, discussion of the real risks of the diseases that the vaccine prevents was barely happening at all.

“Among five author categories, only 4% identified themselves as health professionals.” 47% of authors were in the ‘unstated’ category with most of the others being parents or people with a personal interest in autism or related outcomes. Only 1% identified as being from an anti-vaccine group. It seems that most of the people involved in the online debate were amateurs. There’s nothing wrong with people who aren’t an authority on a subject discussing it, and some amateurs might be very good at finding and interpreting reliable evidence, and explaining to others – but I don’t think it hurts to remind people that when they read discussions about vaccination online they aren’t necessarily reading well-informed discussions.

As for viewpoints, here is the breakdown: 33% were looking for information, 33% were anti-vaccine, 15% did not state their position, 14% were supportive, 5% were ambivalent. So, discussion was essentially dominated by (a) people looking for information and (b) those who are anti-vaccine looking to provide information. Or, more likely in my experience, misinformation.

With the lack of health professionals and participants who were pro-vaccine, and the heavy presence of people with anti-vaccine views, it’s hardly surprising that the supposed risks of vaccination were discussed far more than the known risks of the diseases prevented by vaccination.

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Related

150 Comments

spinikersaid,

It’s remarkable that there are still people trying to prop up vaccination. The 96 season review of the flu vaccine by the Cochraine review said that the evidence for efficacy was ‘implausible at best’. Bill Gate’s polio disaster in India which has effectively renamed Polio as NPFP is not a success.

How many fake flu pandemics do we need to come to the conclusion that the CDC and the NIH are duck breeders par excellence?

None of my kids or the dog have been vaccinated and visiting the doctor is not something we need to do, unlike most of the kids at school that get vaccinated so my tax is supporting all those sick kids who get medicated.

[…] I've been catching up with my reading. I think some of what I've been catching up on is worth sharing. The journal Vaccine had a special edition in 2012 on The Role of Internet Use in Vaccination D… […]

That’s the problem, spiniker. For the anti-vaccination movement (and let’s not pretend that they don’t exist – they have been with us for as long as vaccines), it’s not about evidence. Look at the skewing of science reported in the paper I link to.

Chrissaid,

spiniker, no matter how many times someone gets an MMR vaccine, it will not protect them from influenza. You are conflating two completely types of vaccines for very different kinds of viruses.

By the way, I asked you question a while ago, but you did not seem to have an answer. I’ll try again, especially since it is more on topic than your diversions.

The USA is a much larger country than the UK, and introduced its MMR vaccine with the Jeryl Lynn mumps component in 1971. it was the preferred vaccine for a 1978 Measles Elimination Program. So if any MMR vaccine is responsible for causing autism it would have been noticed in a larger country that had that vaccine for almost two decades before it was introduced in the UK. Can you please post the PubMed indexed studies dated before 1990 showing an increase in autism in the USA due to the MMR vaccine?

This would show that Wakefield had something to base his hypothesis on other than UK taxpayer legal aid funds offered by Richard Barr.

spinikersaid,

“Can you please post the PubMed indexed studies dated before 1990 showing an increase in autism in the USA due to the MMR vaccine? ”

This is the problem, for some reason you are a pubmed believer. Studies funded by the companies that make the jollop are not going to produce ‘evidence’. I don’t know what they feed you at med school but it isn’t common sense, I suppose we could correlate that most doctors are A graders therefore A graders are list pickers and non thinkers.

America has an appalling autism rate and its infant mortality reflects the over medicalisation of its society. Cancer overtook RTA’s as the number one killer of children in the USA so that’s what happens when ‘proper doctors’ start plying their trade.

spinikersaid,

There is no pro or anti stance. Vaccines either work or they don’t. The evidence at the coal face shows that they don’t. Pubmed supports flu pandemic woo, why should anyone believe their vaccine straw man hypothesis?

Just look at Bill Gate’s variant Polio in India, that’s what happens when you mass vaccinate, good news for Bill’s shares in the new Samaritan vaccines he is pretending to give away when in reality another government is squandering what little taxpayers money they have on a useless intervention.

Oh dear, more people now have Polio, let’s rename it NPFP so everyone thinks it’s gone away – wow it works look no one has Polio now they just have a disease which is identical to Polio but not called Polio!

Mcdonalds science springs to mind – and you believe this shit!

spinikersaid,

This is how vaccine promoters push and peddle their wares, still convinced that an idea conceived in the middle ages to inject degraded pus from diseased beings into healthy people in order to ‘protect’ they drive on whilst populations fall around them with new horrible diseases.

So if immunity magazine tells us that there is no correlation between antibody levels and protection from disease how do vaccines work.

Wait a minute, if I am Rubella antibody positive I am protected against German measles, but if I am HIV positive I am going to die! Which one is it jerk? Oh not thought of that, but you are pro vaccine therefore it’s impossible, like a vacuum, god tells us it doesn’t exist – but it does – burn them. All hail bar-med.

The only saving grace in all this is that among the shits that promote this vaccine crap some of them actually get annual shots, at least we know natural selection will work its miracle and one day the idiots that keep pushing this prophecy will no longer be with us. Bring it on baby. Shame that most of humanity will suffer because of vaccination.

“This is the problem, for some reason you are a pubmed believer. Studies funded by the companies that make the jollop are not going to produce ‘evidence’.”

Well then, just post the studies done by the public health and/or educational agencies. The USA is a large country, and if there had been a huge leap in autism from the MMR vaccine it would have been noticed in the public schools.

In 1974 the public schools were ordered to educate children with disabilities due to the passing of the first form of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The surveys of those populations, especially that of a large state like California, are used to track how many children with specific disabilities are in their system.

Now just go and find the education surveys that show the increase in autism went up especially after 1978 when the Measles Elimination Program was using the MMR vaccine.

Also, I should remind you that no matter how many times and types of polio vaccines you give, they will not prevent measles. Please just keep your responses to verifiable documentation on just the American MMR vaccine and to documents before 1990. And please, no more excuses or baseless accusations.

Chris Prestonsaid,

I just looked at the causes of death for children aged 0-14 in the US in 2010. Number 1 cause was congenital birth defects with 5912 deaths. Number 2 was low birth weight with 5189 deaths. Deaths from all cancers was 1323 deaths, less than deaths from all infections at 1588 deaths including deaths from pathogens we can vaccinate against: influenza (396), pertussis (25). These are some needless deaths. It was as easy as looking up the data to determine this.

Your diatribe about testing positive to various conditions, just demonstrates the depth of your ignorance. Testing positive by antibodies only demonstrates an exposure to the antigen. It very much depends on the disease whether this is a safe state or not. HIV attacks the immune system, which makes it difficult for the immune system to eliminate the virus. Rubella on the other hand can be eliminated and then the body reacts faster to a second attack, stoping it.

You could really do with brushing up on your basic biology. I suggest plumbed as a good source of information.

spinikersaid,

Chris, it’s the same old circular argument that gets trotted out every time. ie the only way is vaccines. If vaccines are the only way to stop us dying from these diseases and I and my family and friends avoid them why are we not dead!

spinikersaid,

“spiniker, no matter how many times someone gets an MMR vaccine, it will not protect them from influenza. You are conflating two completely types of vaccines for very different kinds of viruses.” Chris the weasel

Nice smoke screen – you can’t be protected against the influenza virus – that’s woo vaccine talk. If you could flu would be gone, and it isn’t. Next we get more spin on ‘it’s a difficult virus – it mutates’.

I did not ask you about child mortality in the only industrialized country without a national health system. Nor did I ask you about a ambulance chasing lawsuit about the efficacy of the Jeryl Lynn mumps component (which is no secret, since there are plenty of studies comparing it to Urabe and Rubini strains), which has gone no where for a year.

You keep changing the subject, virus, etc. Please stop that.

I asked you to provide the evidence that the American MMR vaccine causes an increase in autism in the USA during the 1970s and 1980s, with verifiable documentation dated before 1990. Logically since the USA is many times bigger than the UK, and had been using the MMR vaccine for almost twice as long, there would be real data. If there isn’t then, and coupled with the fact that an increase in autism due to MMR has not been found in several other countries in both Europe and Asia, that Wakefield is wrong.

So the conclusion is that since autism did not go up in the USA coincident to the use of the MMR, that autism did not decrease with Japan dropping their Urabe mumps version, and none of the several epidemiological studies carried out in other countries show a correlation between MMR and autism: that the MMR vaccine has nothing to do with autism.

And the MMR vaccine is safer than measles, mumps and rubella. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present the PubMed indexed study from a qualified reputable researcher. By the way, “qualified” and “reputable” means that the author has an appropriate background, like not law, business, computer science, geology, etc. Plus that they have been been stripped of their medical credentials.

spinikersaid,

“Vaccine Safety: Examine the Evidence
Now go through of those papers and identify which pharmaceutical paid for them. Be sure to directly quote the words identifying the company.” Christ the vaccine believer

Well that paper isn’t even good for the dunny. The American academy of pediatrics works closely with the CDC, the pandemic flu scammers from hell. Is this the best you can do!
Even the FDA are involved, what the hell is interdependent about that?

Come on that’s like asking homeopaths to approve homeopathy, nerd

Chrissaid,

Plus you did not do the work I asked you to do. You are to show exactly the quote showing the pharmaceutical companies that paid for the studies. Now go back and do it properly, we cannot take your word for it unless you provide the evidence.

I should also remind you that the author of this blog does not live in the United States of America. The FDA and CDC have no jurisdiction in the UK. Also there are also lots of other countries on this planet where the FDA and CDC have no jurisdiction. Are you going to tell us Big Pharma also controls Australia, Norway, Japan, India, Canada, Mexico and all of the rest of the industrialized countries through the FDA?

Give us actual evidence, not conspiracy theories.

spinikersaid,

There is no conspiracy, just lots of fake ‘evidence’. If you don’t live in the States why are you quoting CDC FDA and AAP fairy stories as science?

If a medical procedure, in this case vaccination, is deemed by a high court ruling to not be in the interests of a child to have forced upon them it means the science is bad. Or maybe you are telling us that medical science is outside the law with regard to its actions.

If we take swine flu it obviously is, when Roche was asked by the BMJ for all the Tamiflu data that the public purse paid for so it could do a post scamdemic audit their reply was “we’ve lost it!” Any mortal company would be sued for misappropriation of public funds – but not the woo of medicine.

Nice to see that at least one septic blog admits that criminal negligence is not applicable to medical science, one step in the right direction at least. It is the kind of ‘get out of jail free card’ we see applied to other churches when abuse is discovered.

” Are you going to tell us Big Pharma also controls Australia, Norway, Japan, India, Canada, Mexico and all of the rest of the industrialized countries through the FDA?” No, but they will when they start lobbying for legal changes to force us all to vaccinate (that’s already happened in the States).

spinikersaid,

I suppose I could post a copy of the Beano and ask you to find the exact evidence that Micky Mouse didn’t do it, but just see if you can.

It is exactly because the kind of medical science you believe in only exists in artificial constructs you are capable of this kind of nah nah nose thumb. My quote is bigger than your quote crap.

During the last flu pandemic scam Poland was the only western country that officially announced that it was not investing in flu vaccination or any mass antiviral prescribing because it did not see the evidence for a pandemic reaction. The FDA labelled Poland as an ‘undesirable nation’ because of it.

After the scamdemic was over it is now quietly acknowledged that Poland was right, their flu stats were no different to any other year.

Who the fuck are the FDA anyway, just some American McCarthyism led group like the Bill Gates conspiracy vaccine programme, more money and power than is good for anyone, swings a big bat in its own lunchtime but morally is like one of those screwed up kids with a machine gun in a fast food joint that no one really likes.

Medicine has a history of breaking the law, experimenting on children and using indigenous populations to test new drugs – so what’s new? what’s this conspiracy you mentioned, I don’t see it – it’s happening.

Then provide the real evidence. Post the direct quotes from those papers showing no real relationship between vaccines and autism are all funded by Big Pharma.

And do tell me how these are FDA and CDC papers, provide the direct quotes from each paper showing that and which pharmaceutical company paid for them:

Vaccine. 2012 Jun 13;30(28):4292-8. Epub 2012 Apr 20.
The combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines and the total number of vaccines are not associated with development of autism spectrum disorder: The first case-control study in Asia.

spinikersaid,

Chris darling, you are not reading me really. These holy papers that you keep quoting are not worth the paper they are written on. If you can’t see the increase in chronic disease, atopy, autism, allergy then you must be a doctor. We now know that ‘proper doctors’ know fuck all about health, all they know how to do is follow guidelines that shift like the sands.

Chris Prestonsaid,

A pandemic by WHO definition is that the virus has sustained community level outbreaks in at least two regions of the world.

Under that definition, SARS, avian flu and swine flu were all pandemics. SARS in China, other Asian countries and Canada. Swine flu in North America, Asia and Europe among other regions. Avian flu in various Asian countries and African countries.

It’s irrelevant who posts this, it is in court in America, your straw banana about legal rulings not usurping medical woo don’t stack up. If indeed it turns out Merck fiddled the data to make it’s woo vaccine look good, the science is crap and so is your argument.

It would seem logical to extrapolate this expected court ruling to all peer reviewed medical data but of course we are dealing with vaccine woo and lots of people have a vested interest in their own pile.

That is the problem with relying on one source Chris, when it falls down you are forced to recant or carry on, looks like the septic community is driving on into the woo, better get some galoshes!

spinikersaid,

Actually, medical science is about the scientific evidence. You might try providing some.

And do tell me how these are FDA and CDC papers, provide the direct quotes from each paper showing that and which pharmaceutical company paid for them:

Vaccine. 2012 Jun 13;30(28):4292-8. Epub 2012 Apr 20.
The combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines and the total number of vaccines are not associated with development of autism spectrum disorder: The first case-control study in Asia.

If you want people to take your arguments seriously, I suggest you back them up with better sources.

That is the problem with relying on one source Chris, when it falls down you are forced to recant or carry on, looks like the septic community is driving on into the woo, better get some galoshes!

It seems you don’t understand that Chris is not relying on one source Spiniker. The evidence against an association between MMR and autism comes from studies conducted by different authors in different countries, independently of each other.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that manufacturers, academics and health authorities form some kind of pro-vaccine monolith. This Cochrane review: http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004407/using-the-combined-vaccine-for-protection-of-children-against-measles-mumps-and-rubella found that “Exposure to the MMR vaccine was unlikely to be associated with autism, asthma, leukaemia, hay fever, type 1 diabetes, gait disturbance, Crohn’s disease, demyelinating diseases, bacterial or viral infections.” The same Cochrane Collaboration also published this review: http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD001269/vaccines-to-prevent-influenza-in-healthy-adults which argued that there was “no evidence that they [flu vaccines] affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission“. The authors also warned that 15 of the studies were funded by industry and may be more likely to report conclusions favourable to the vaccines than studies funded by public sources. Is the Cochrane Collaboration part of this pro-vaccine monolith you imagine exists? If so, how do you square that with the publication of the review into flu vaccines for healthy adults?

Hosiahsaid,

Oh dear Christ and J20. Seem to have touched a nerve. Where is the online debate, it is like talking to Catholics here. Merck are in court over fraudulent claims for MMR efficacy, of course this won’t be found in a medical peer reviewed journal because they are all sucking each others knobs. Evidence alone that the journals are corrupt, surely it should interest them at least that one of their biggest is in serious trouble.

You can quote from the bible of pubmed all you like Christ, we ain’t listening.

Hosiahsaid,

“That is what the data from vaccine use from the last two hundred years. And since you choose to ignore that, we just need to ignore you.” Christ

Not sure what you are saying here the grammar doesn’t stack up, but I’ll guess.

Problem here is that the people who compile the data also tell us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that millennium bugs are gonna crash the world’s computers and that we are all gonna die from pandemic flu.

All these soothsayer predictions are conspiracy theories because a had none, b Italy invested nothing in millennium bugs and nothing happened and the only people who die from pandemic flu are those who are stupid enough to believe a vaccine is gonna protect them.

“How do you equate vaccination with ‘protection’ from any disease.” H

I asked you Chris, how do you equate, not how does someone other jerk in a white coat produce stats. How DO YOU THINK vaccination is supposed to work or are you just a vaccine believer?

Let’s hear some antibody woo. Who told you pubmed was credible because I can’t believe you found it on your own.

Let’s see some debate rather than some football club allegiance, let’s see some mental processing.

Problem here is that the people who compile the data also tell us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that millennium bugs are gonna crash the world’s computers and that we are all gonna die from pandemic flu.

Well, if that’s the problem you will be delighted to learn that the September Dossier was put together by the Joint Intelligence Committee rather than medical researchers and that the researchers who investigated, for example, the alleged association between MMR and autism had no involvement in claims regarding the potential dangers of the millennium bug.

Do you have a point? You just make stuff up and expect us to bend over and ignore the science done over the past two centuries. You obviously have problems with basic academics since you post idiot comments like:

“Let’s hear some antibody woo. Who told you pubmed was credible because I can’t believe you found it on your own.”

You seem to be germ denier and stuck in some kind of fantasy world, which is why a discussion with you is only for our amusement.

Kaitisaid,

I didnt read all this bickering, but I did see one question I may be able to answer simply. The time difference between when the MMR vaccine was introduced and now are vast, in my opinion. However, the autism link is drawn due to MMR and the combination of all the other vaccines recommended. This is a lot more stimulation of a new immune system, a lot more potential for certain persons susceptible to experience unfortunate outcomes, even death. If this thread is going to be a “throw around scientific studies” debbate, then you must be open minded. You must listen to the logic behind a lot of the ideas presented by the “anti-vax” community (where skeptics and families of those affected are thrown in with aggressive anti vaccine, because it’s the same thing, right?) I say you “must” because otherwise it is bickering, and goes nowhere. I would love to find an online thread where this topic is discussed reasonably by both “sides”.

Hosiahsaid,

Kaiti
This site is like an Opus Day smorgasbord. Most of the posts have a quasi science belief stance, most of the quoted science is flawed and from publications that promote ideas like ‘you can catch flu’. Or watch out there is a pandemic coming – again.

You won’t find that discussion you are looking for here, it is not about pro or anti vax, that is the smokescreen. It is really about whether or not the evidence for benefit from this intervention exists.

It is weird that the pro vaxx lobby will only accept ‘evidence’ from the pro vaxx lobby and to that end it is a closed discussion.

Most of these septic sites are only here to troll for good evidence against their method and then use that to undermine anything that opposes their views.

They all need twatting really but not being violent I prefer to take the piss. thankfully they are in the minority but still irritating from time to time.

Chrissaid,

“It is weird that the pro vaxx lobby will only accept ‘evidence’ from the pro vaxx lobby and to that end it is a closed discussion.”

Well, only because you have offered nothing other than blatant assertions and conspiracy theories, and reject anything that has to do with reality. The reason the discussion is over is because you refuse to acknowledge the existence of viruses, bacteria and other pathogens.

Hosiahsaid,

“The reason the discussion is over is because you refuse to acknowledge the existence of viruses, bacteria and other pathogens.” our lord C

Well now you are hallucinating, where have I said that viruses bacteria and other pathogens do not exist. Your statement has more bull in it, since when were all bacteria and viruses pathogens? How much biology do you know Chris? Most people swab positive for many so called pathogens but are not ill – germ theory is exactly that – a theory.

Flu pandemic was not a reality nor was SARS – but it was a pubmed reality.

Chrissaid,

Not directly, but you exposed your lack of science by this statement: “Let’s hear some antibody woo. Who told you pubmed was credible because I can’t believe you found it on your own.”

Plus you also said “We all know high school biology is bullshit Chris”, and finally “germ theory is exactly that – a theory.” In short, you have no grasp of reality, therefore are not worth the bother.

Chris Prestonsaid,

Hosiah, you are sounding just like spiniker – are you sure you are not just a sockpuppet?

It seems that because you fail to understand the definition of the word pandemic you conclude that flu pandemics don’t exist. I expect you will also claim that the 50 million or so victims of the 1918 flu pandemic could not have died.

You really do show off your ignorance when you post.

Chrissaid,

Chris Preston, check out comment #36. He claims he was banned, but was not. It was probably some kind of user/computer area, and he shows his paranoia by automatically thinking he was banned. This is his level of academic rigor.

spinaalkersaid,

“. I expect you will also claim that the 50 million or so victims of the 1918 flu pandemic could not have died.” Christ II said

It is what they died of Chris – aspirin poisoning. You can’t keep part quoting medical bibles that edit out the facts to keep supporting the myths and legends of medical breakwind.

Love the sock puppet – by the way this site is a bit like that Septics Uk one that folded – apparently the guy doing all the medical editing couldn’t cope with all the evidence- ie it was taking him half the night to cut and paste edit those who refused to believe in the book of pubmed.

Are you sure that you are not a scientologist because everytime the straw man in you unravels you start getting all shirty.

The quote about high school biology is what is told to every biology undergrad ie forget what you have been taught it’s crap. I am sorry that is your level of science, next you will be telling us you are a proper doctor.

So considering that the highest mortality in the 1918 pandemic was men 15 to 35 and old people and women hardly featured – do you believe the medical myth about the virus highjacking those strong immune systems and turning it in on itself?

Chris Prestonsaid,

spinaalker (or whatever your new name is going to be), you really are the gift that keeps on giving.

“It is what they died of Chris – aspirin poisoning.”

I am not at all surprised that you have plumped for this hypothesis. It is one that is beloved by Mercola, Rense, Icke and all those other conspiracy-mongering websites and also, not surprisingly, by homeopaths. But it is also obviously wrong. The more than 18.5 million who died in India had no access to aspirin, so couldn’t have been poisoned by it.

Your ignorance about cytokine storms is, well, telling.

Christalballssaid,

Most doctors are picked for their grade A status rather than their common sense. Here we see the red necked pill believer chortling out their jollop, stuck in a career structure akin to some Opus Day style hierarchy.

If they got it wrong with the last 3 flu pandemics you must be a believer to keep that one going! I hope you keep up with your flu jab Chris,with any luck you’ll get narcolepsy and your posting will drift away like the flatulence from a nun.

Chrissaid,

flashahasaid,

The internet is an interesting place. Occasionally one needs to dump and sourcing a suitable cyberdunny is a needs must entity.

Chris and Chris P have kindly provided this portaloo of waste uber science where on can safely download.

The saddest part about this pseudo site is the complete lack of scientific inquiry, the lack of debate and finally the depth of redneck belief. The sheer waste of GB’s just keeping it running, all to prop up a failing belief system, lovers of the Offit troll etc.

This is one of my favorites Chris – I love the idea that you guys actually support this shit – well I suppose being a cyberdunny what do you expect.

Looking forward to depositing again soon – hey where’s the paper!

Chrissaid,

Comedy troll who cannot decide on a name: you obviously have no clue about science.

I was given a swine flu vaccine in 1976 as part of a test group. Nothing happened, and that nothing continued to happen a couple of years later when the Russian flu hit our college campus. Lots of my classmates got very sick, but I did not get it.

Oh, and I got the H1N1 flu vaccine again a few years ago. Again nothing happened. I did not get sick, and am still very healthy. The only problem this year is gathering kids together for flu vaccines due to their very different schedules.

So what is your issue with old news like H1N1? Wasn’t that in 2009? Are you stuck in a time warp? Perhaps the conspiracy is that you have no idea that everything continued after 2009.

Qup boyssaid,

So just because you didn’t get flu it is no evidence it was the flu jab Chris. The 96 season flu jab review by the Cochraine Collaboration makes it clear that the evidence for flu jab efficacy is ‘implausible at best’.

You ought to know that anecdotal beliefs, however indoctrinated to not amount to proper clinical evidence. Cochraine is far more up to date than 1976.

Just get your damn vaccine

Hoohasaid,

Hoohasaid,

Glad we have heroes like you to take a stand against voodoo. Wish I had the skills to second guess flu strain and then get it spectacularly wrong every time. Oh by the way there wasn’t a H1N1 banana pandemic, that was a marketing strategy to con world governments into buying a flawed vaccine. Camel flu next…………. will you be there?

You are such a believer, it would make a druid weep.

I can just see you doing vaccine holy communion, it is amazing how effective belief can be, especially when it’s on the news and those nice doctors are all telling you we are going to die………….. bollicus chap 4

Hoohasaid,

So when the posturing polemics have died down – when is the debate going to start? There are no anti vaccination tactics Chris – that is myth number one. There is a lot, and I mean a lot, of pro vaccine hype and that is perhaps where you might find the answer to your quest. Or explain why you have such difficulty grasping facts.

I mean take that twat Paul Offit. He reckons the immune system of a baby can cope with 10,000 vaccines! That is a typical medical anecdote that septic sites often quote – so what is the difference between a medical anecdote like this and a homeopathic one?

With factoids like St Pauls, it is no wonder there are still pro vaccine sites trying to scrabble over dust for answers. it is a pleasure to help.

Chris Prestonsaid,

The sock puppets are out in force at the moment. No evidence to support their position mind you, but that has never stopped them. Belief is all that they need. If they believe vaccines are dangerous and useless, then obviously they are. Because after all wishing makes it so.

skepticatshaggersaid,

Ah now you are playing the game of the straw man, the reverse hypothesis. Meanwhile the fact that vaccination is akin to voodoo sails on past your intellect. Lord Offit and his projections of 10,000 waft in the air like so much descending red mist.

sock puppetsaid,

That’s rich – sock puppet. The straw is oozing from your ears. When is the debate starting Chris, I can’t wait to see the logic of a sock. The pebbles of Brian P fart in the dust like so much medical hypothesis. Next you will be telling us to get injection 5 to stop the lurgy.

So if I am spamming nonsense, what are you spamming?

Chris Prestonsaid,

sock puppet, I don’t see much value in a debate with you. A discussion with someone who’s default position is that all published science is wrong and what they believe is right is hardly likely to be helpful.

Rather like wrestling a pig in mud.

Chrissaid,

The mighty morphing troll does seem to have much skill with reading comprehension. It has been told that since he denies reality there is no point in any kind of discussion. Though the responses are king of amusing.

sock puppeteersaid,

” A discussion with someone who’s default position is that all published science is wrong and what they believe is right is hardly likely to be helpful.” Chris

I totally agree. Also discussing things with people who are unable to digest published science that tells us the flu pandemic was a fantasy, that anti virals didn’t work too. It is amazing how much woo is on this site, appeals to emotion, belief in pseudo science, clones of Chris everywhere.

Next you will be telling us that we can catch flu – can’t wait for that straw puppet, mudwrestler. It’s like poking Catholics! or shouting God is dead in a church.

Chris Pistonsaid,

“It has been told that since he denies reality there is no point in any kind of discussion. ” Chris clone II

Depends what your reality is based on – woo like pubmed? So shall since you have decided that all published medical data is correct, how is one supposed to have a debate. Maybe you want us all to go woooo. How clever? Isn’t that what the believers in the bible do – what an incredible story that was hey – what an incredible saint the Offit is or was that the Hobbit?

Chris Piston broke againsaid,

” Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies.” Cochraine

Well guess what most of the pro vaccine hype is funded by the companies that make the snake oil. There is lots of published evidence that vaccines are crap. What I find fascinating is why you can’t see that – blinded by sock puppets, straw phallus and your own intellect.

Thisblogisdead.comsaid,

Perhaps people begin to find correcting your errors boring after a while? (Chris Preston has already noted that “A discussion with someone who’s default position is that all published science is wrong and what they believe is right is hardly likely to be helpful.”)

You misunderstand the nature of Pubmed, a database of medical articles that you seem to think has a pro-vaccine ideological stance (not to mention your weird insistence that the papers indexed there are produced by drug companies).

You cite the Iraq war dossier in support of your argument that there is something wrong with the data published in journals.

You assert that there are no anti-vaccination tactics, making no attempt to support this assertion. The post you are commenting on links to a paper that discusses the tactics used by various websites that are ant-vaccination.

I was under the impression that the flu vaccine had been found to be less effective than previously thought. Can you post the reference that supports your claim that the flu vaccine is “useless” please?

As for your denial that anti-vaccine tactics exist: please can you explain why the anti-vaccine tactics discussed in the linked paper are not anti-vaccine tactics? Simply asserting that they aren’t is not convincing.

Chrissaid,

What a brilliant meltdown from someone incapable of answering the simple questions posed in comments #5, 16, 22, 31. At least three of them are to tell us which are pharma funded with quotes from the papers.

pssaid,

This second one is funny. BMJ tells us that any perceived benefit for the flu vaccine may actually be that it’s predominantly health people who go for the jab! God the bullshite you boys seem to wallo in explains your ability to argue! I hope you go for a flu jab every year.

Chrissaid,

This second one is funny. BMJ tells us that any perceived benefit for the flu vaccine may actually be that it’s predominantly health people who go for the jab! God the bullshite you boys seem to wallo in explains your ability to argue! I hope you go for a flu jab every year.

Rather than finding links that are funny, you might be better off posting something that supports the claim I picked you up on.

mythbustersaid,

That’s interesting J20. When published medical peer review points out the elephant in the room ie flu vaccination is bullshit, you, clinging to vaccine mythology like some catholic with a bible in a fire, choose to play blog protocol over some irrelevant detail.

Pull your finger out of your arse and wake up.

mythbustersaid,

That’s interesting J20. When published medical peer review points out the elephant in the room ie flu vaccination is bullshit, you, clinging to vaccine mythology like some catholic with a bible in a fire, choose to play blog protocol over some irrelevant detail.

Pull your finger out of your arse and wake up.

Unfortunately, the papers (or, as you would have it “published medical peer review”) that you have posted don’t seem to support the claims you have made. Bizarrely, you seem to think that asking for the evidence that supports your claims is “playing blog protocol over some irrelevant detail”. If you really do think that the evidence is irrelevant detail, then that might go some way towards explaining your odd views on certain topics.

Flu vaccination is less effective that other vaccines, and less effective than was once thought. I don’t think anyone here would disagree with that – I certainly wouldn’t, as I have seen the evidence to support it. What I haven’t seen is the evidence to support the claims you’ve made that flu vaccine is “useless”, “bullshit” and “doesn’t work”, and that all positive trials are industry funded.

mythbustersaid,

hey this thread is starting to look like a Jehovah’s Witness indenti- kit reply robot.

So let us start again. There is no antivax tactic – when the evidence shows us that they don’t work, can’t work and the companies like Merckk are fiddling the stats to provide false evidence no one needs tactics.

You are either a believer or non believer, there is no science to support their use as a prophylactic against any disease. Period

There are still a small group of people known as septics who insist on promoting the idea that to be for vaccination is a good right wing thing to do, those against the motion are hippies with beards and open toed sandals.

Is this stereo typed marketing strategy an appropriate model for modern medical science – well it is when no one is getting with the programme because they can all see its all bullshit.

I love this site

Chrissaid,

Troll: “There is no antivax tactic – when the evidence shows us that they don’t work,”

Which you have not provided. The following is census data from the United States of America during the twentieth century showing measles incidence. Please tell us why the rate of measles incidence dropped by 90% between 1960 and 1970 in the USA. Do not mention deaths (mortality), do not mention any other decade or any other country (England, Wales and Japan are not American states). Provide actual verifiable evidence to support your answer:

mythbustersaid,

We all know that the mortality from measles was 90% out of the picture before measles vaccine was created. Doctors conveniently present number of cases recorded ie GP declarations because that is a notoriously ‘bendable’ database. We all know that GP’s under report and over report at whim, what they can’t fiddle so easily is the mortality rate. This is the most important piece of data you stupid cunt. Wonder why you said I can’t talk about that?

If measles is only fatal in malnourished kids, which the WHO tell us is true from comparative studies done between Africa and the Western world, the fucking vaccine is irrelevant. Period

Stop sucking that pubmed cock and get a life

You need the scaffold pole of life shoving where the sun don’t shine sonny

mythbustersaid,

Chrissaid,

Obviously you cannot answer the question honestly. The decrease in mortality is due to improvements in medical care, very expensive medical care. In Wales about one in ten ended up in hospital, which cost the NHS lots of money.

So why did the incidence in the USA drop 90% between 1960 snd 1970?

“Maybe you didn’t know but vaccines become less effective the nearer the equator you get to.”

mythbustersaid,

Passive aggression is worse Chris, continually avoiding any of the facts, sockpuppet is no different to cunt.

The problem here is you are hiding behind corrupt research – either you are too naive to see that or you are sick, both have a poor prognosis.

If medicine has to ‘tweak’ the criteria for critique ie say mortality stats can’t be used only GP notifications – that is cunt science.

If the mortality rate was already down by 90%+ before vaccination came in – it is relevant to point that out. If you think dying from an illness is less important than being able to market a chocolate teapot – you are either and arse or a cunt – and you are not allowed to tell me I am being rude.

Kids are dying and disabled because of shits like you and if you won’t open to reasoned debate on the subject – you are a shit. Governments have wasted billions on fraudulent flu vaccines – that is more than rude sonny. Get off your xbox and look around.

Bill Gates variant polio in India is another modern example of marketing over lives, take a long hard look at that scam.

Chrissaid,

Interesting way to avoid answering a very simple question, one that had actual facts and data: just random insults and completely ignoring reality.

So why exactly did measles incidence in the USA drop 90% between 1960 and 1970? Do not mention mortality (which is something else), do not mention any other decade, any other disease and do not mention any other country. Take note that England, Wales and Japan are not American states, and that there are territories in the USA very close to the equator (again, work on your geography).

“and you are not allowed to tell me I am being rude.”

Though I am currently laughing at you for the incredible irony of that demand.

Mikesaid,

Today’s vaccines go far beyond the vaccine concept by essentially using GUNK to manipulate the immune system over and over and over and and over and over and over and over……… The GUNK is within the metabolism processes. No wonder people are getting maladies of “unknown” origin.

mythbustersaid,

The standard of testing, according to medical peer review mythology, is the RCT placebo blind trial method where the drug or vaccine in question is tested against a placebo.

So perhaps you can tell me why, in vaccine studies, the placebo is often the same as the vaccine vehicle and that this is also not transparently obvious ie clearly stated.

This allows these ‘trials’ to rule out adverse events if they also occur in the control group giving the impression that the vaccine is safer – here is a paper that does this with the title laughably – healthy vaccine effect of MMR

So this very favorable paper on the MMR was funded by Merck, there are more weasel words in it than I could chuck a stick at, but for now let’s focus on the placebo – or lack of it and how were they able to get away with this complete shit.

If you want the hidden link to the fake placebo, just ask, how anyone could argue that it has no pharmacological action only a vaccine believer could do.

Now you are engaging a little bit more, remember boys focus and stop playing with it or you will go blind.

mythbustersaid,

“Only thought by those who failed (or did not take) basic statistics and wants to repeat the Tuskegee syphilis experiment.”

Nice weasel Chris – so let’s redefine placebo as anything that makes a vaccine look fucking brilliant. So basic statistics means redefine common or everyday meanings so that you can hide failure. Maybe if they used petrol instead of phenol red and aluminum salts the vaccine would be orbit-ally better than the placebo.

I’ll post the link to the ‘placebo’ unless you would like to do that for us?

Interesting how this study decided that bowel inflammation was not to be reported! So if we also decide that autism etc can’t be reported either the whole thing looks amazing.

You don’t have to be in a country to fund a piece of research. Going back to an earlier cock suck of yours ie give us citations of favorable research that is funded by the vaccine manufacturers – here’s one Jonny.

mythbustersaid,

” That could present a bit of a challenge for enrolling subjects: trying to convince someone who is against vaccines to have a chance that their kid could get one (and be exposed to whatever outcome they fear), and trying to convince those who are for vaccines to have a chance their child might not get one (and thus, be unprotected against a range of diseases).”

Not really, for a start you assume, as a vaccine believer, that not having this mythical vaccine that has no evidence it works is somehow a problem! It has no evidence it works you prat, that is why it is in a trial. Unless you assume it works! jerk. There again science goes down the Dunny with Chris – you can’t help it. It has bias before it starts, better not test the vaccine in case it doesn’t work!

No we find lots of people who have not been vaccinated and put them against those that have – in the trial above on MMR they state that all the twins had either already had the MMR or the wild measles, wtf where they trying to prove.

Are you thick or just stupid?

mythbustersaid,

“Finally, the placebo in such a study would be a shot, given in the same manner as a vaccine, except without any active ingredients in it (i.e., no antigens, no adjuvants like aluminum salts, no preservatives like thimerosal, etc.). Most likely, the placebo would be saline.” Tuskegee

Ho fucking ho

Did you read the link to tuskegee? this is what he says, so why is the placebo in the MMR trial above the same vehicle adjuncts et all as the fucking vaccine?

jerk

mythbustersaid,

“Only thought by those who failed (or did not take) basic statistics and wants to repeat the Tuskegee syphilis experiment.” Chris posted this link!

perhaps you could tell us what this random link is Chris – I mean I have come to expect septic shit from people like you not used to the bullying not working but this link seems to be as relevant as dog shit in a pie.

so far he mentions that placebo should be what we all think it should be, the rest is septic vaccine believer crap.

Answer the goddam question!
You are having a laugh, I posted a link to a favorable vaccine funded fudge paper, you tell us why it is allowed to be evidence – arse.

Chrissaid,

Funny demand from someone who has not told me why measles dropped 90% in the USA between 1960 and 1970, or the answered the questions I asked in comments #5, 13 and 16.

The reason I can’t answer your question is that you don’t make any sense, and it seems that your reading comprehension is such that you cannot read the link and proceed through all four articles. So it is obvious that you dropped out of school when you were seven years old.

mythbustersaid,

The rate only dropped because the stat was ‘notifications’ which is eminently biased. The mortality rate didn’t fall, for some reason that doesn’t impress you, like placebo in vaccine trials, it is redefined to make the stat stack up.

Why you rate doctor’s notifications over mortality rate is weird boy

All these articles show is yet more weasel words to justify vaccination, it takes 4 articles of shit to reinvent logic so that the data fits.

I suppose that is your level of logic, pull the piece of wood out of your arse chris and get a life

mythbustersaid,

In this paper, which I have already posted the link to, we are not allowed to report any gastric inflammation, use real placebos so we can reduce the adverse events data – what else was ‘tested’ Chris, apart from the reality fabric of science. The vaccine was tested against its own vehicle!

Let’s test guns against knives, as the placebo control, but disallow mortality as a reported result and hey ho there was no more ‘adverse events’ than in the control for those injured in the brains stem. Oh I forgot, in this RCT with placebo control, bleeding was determined not to be a reportable event.

I am really getting this medical peer review now Chris, would you like to take part in an RCT crossover trial between a bag of potatoes and a parachute? Oh guess what, there is no EBM for a parachute, apparently it just works!

mythbustersaid,

“Funny demand from someone who has not told me why measles dropped 90% in the USA between 1960 and 1970, or the answered the questions I asked in comments #5, 13 and 16.” Chris warbled

I have Chris, thing is you and ‘medical science’ have decided that only doctor’s notifications can be used to critique efficacy, for some unknown reason mortality rates – and for fuck wits that means the deaths from measles – are not admissible or interesting.

The officially documented facts that measles was 98% in decline before vaccination attempts for measles lumbered off the starting blocks puts your pathetic claim for victory somewhat in the cow shed.

Instead of scrabbling in septic logic why not wake up and smell the coffee Chris. I am interested in why you accept the hoodwink of doctors bias reports over coroner’s records?

Remember it is in doctor’s interests to under or over report to suit themselves – why is public policy and public money spent on this kind of evidence gravy train and why are you arguing for it to be discussed!

Idiot

Mikesaid,

A good comparison to the danger of modern vaccines is a PC warranty that is voided when the PC is over-clocked, reset to run faster. Once a PC is over-clocked it is considered damaged goods. Think about it. As complex as a PC is it is like an amoeba compared to a human baby.

mythbustersaid,

typical septic distraction. That MMR paper with its fake placebo and not being allowed to report GIT issues and using twins that had already had measles or the MMR as the control and study group is the kind of fake science that you are supporting. Comparing that to a PC that is being overused is quite frankly a piss take. maybe using a PC as a blender and then complaining that the veg isn’t chopped enough is more factual?

When one starts to unravel the so called efficacy evidence for vaccination what one finds is a systematic fraud. If that doesn’t concern you then you are as much an arsehole as the arseholes who are forcing kids to take this shit.

How do vaccine researchers accept phenol red and aluminum salts as a placebo Mikey?

mythbustersaid,

Sure, Chris/rumplechristian thinks that medical anecdotes are facts, you know ones like ‘doctors know that vaccines save lives’. We all know that no proper vaccine fall out stats are recorded anywhere, no one really knows how many people who get measles for example have been vaccinated because when you ask the NIH or WHO or NHS for this basic data they will tell you it doesn’t exist.

Thing is there is no conspiracy, it’s happening – adherence to shit vaccine policy is cheaper than admitting it is a failure, one day people like Chris will be called to account and pardoned for being a septic doormat.

mythbustersaid,

skewing science
shifting hypotheses
censoring dissent
attacking critics
Something should be done, I mean the idea that you can ‘catch’ flu has to be the pinnacle of anti science, especially when 40 years of government study failed to replicate flu transmission theory.

mythbustersaid,

“The idiot morphing troll forgets that all the evidence shows that vaccines are mostly effective.” Medical anecdotes as facts!

The link you just provided to the CDC that you claim ‘most assuredly’ that flu is transmissible starts with the corker –

“People with flu can spread it to others up to about 6 feet away. Most experts think that flu viruses are spread mainly by droplets made when people with flu cough, sneeze or talk.”

Wow if that is medical science, anything you think can be true!

Considering it took you that long to go – one two three banana Chris I wonder what you do for a living? Are you a ‘proper doctor then’?

Chris the British government studied ‘flu virus transmission’ for 40 years in lab conditions spraying flu virus up volunteer’s noses and more. The highest stat of infection was 3/32. That didn’t even get to placebo.

I suggest you start reading some books instead of switching between ‘call of duty’ and this blog, you are getting all confused.